So, the actual Saugus ROW is about one car length from the light at Main St. Carpocalypse? Hardly.
At Fleet St the Northern edge of the ROW is actually a few feet north of the extant stopline. Again, hardly a "carpocalypse".
The ROW @ Holden and Rt 60 goes through the intersection of 60E and about 30 ft east on 60W an offset of 2 car lengths.
As far as Franklin through Cross, they are all relatively small one way neighborhood streets. Only Bryant has stoplights. These are not major arteries. Faulkner and Cross are one block long.
Bryant, Faulkner and Cross are within a 600 ft section
Rt 99 and Beach will require some signal management, but 99 should be a stop anyways, and Lynn and Wesley should have a light anyways. I am not saying that there are no issues with the route, but it is not the disaster you are portraying. Am I saying that it is the first item on my wish list? No. But it is a good solid option after the Green Line goes to Sullivan and Everett/Chelsea (and West Medford,.. and Needham...and Dudley [in no particular order])
The NSRL IS Boston’s version of crossrail.
I disagree, but neither is HBHi's vision for a new transit line. I don't really think that a long crosstown RER tunnel like Crossrail has much of a reasonable analog here, at least for a few decades if urban rail really takes off.
Well, I disagree with your disagree (but only slightly).
1) Boston is so much smaller than London, that it is unlikely we will ever need a long RER crosstown tunnel.
I don't know if this the right analogy, either. I fail to see any remote relation between an intentional radial service and one that's merely connecting the dots between mainlines on each side of a break already pointing as if they should run thru. I'm even more confused as to why these projects would be pitched as competing with each other. I mean, UR Phase III might literally cost twice as much as NSRL to do up as heavy rail...so it's certainly not a cost rationalization.2) But our smaller cross downtown tunnel proposal (NSRL) manages to interconnect ALL of our potential RER lines, so it is really a Crossrail on steroids. (Because we only have two rail terminuses to connect, unlike London).
Who said anything about going up on 93?
No, but if the Orange Line is extended to Reading (likely with electrification ) the Green Line could continue north from Sullivan, over the Medford Branch to the Fellsway, up the median to 93 and then down beside 93 (one track per side) (nearly) to Medford Sq. Personally, I could also see another branch up to Malden Ctr ad over the Saugus Branch, at least to the cinema parking lot if not to Saugus Ctr.
This is not your great grandpappy's Fellsway: https://youtu.be/WesgTvAkMOE.And there are only three cross streets on the Fellsway in 1.5 miles and another 1/2 mile to the CR lines. Yes, the half mile down Brookside Parkway(a 65ft ROW) has a street crossing at Webster and the tracks need to cross from the east side of Brookside to the west just before the off ramp. That gets you to City Hall. Six street crossings in 4 miles and you're at Assembly. 20 min to Haymarket, tops
In what world are Green Line to Saugus and Green Line as Urban Ring mutually exclusive? And the UR wont solve all of the111 busses problems either.
So, the actual Saugus ROW is about one car length from the light at Main St. Carpocalypse? Hardly.
At Fleet St the Northern edge of the ROW is actually a few feet north of the extant stopline. Again, hardly a "carpocalypse".
The ROW @ Holden and Rt 60 goes through the intersection of 60E and about 30 ft east on 60W an offset of 2 car lengths.
As far as Franklin through Cross, they are all relatively small one way neighborhood streets. Only Bryant has stoplights. These are not major arteries. Faulkner and Cross are one block long.
Bryant, Faulkner and Cross are within a 600 ft section
Rt 99 and Beach will require some signal management, but 99 should be a stop anyways, and Lynn and Wesley should have a light anyways. I am not saying that there are no issues with the route, but it is not the disaster you are portraying. Am I saying that it is the first item on my wish list? No. But it is a good solid option after the Green Line goes to Sullivan and Everett/Chelsea (and West Medford,.. and Needham...and Dudley [in no particular order])
If they pick up Transitway-Downtown for re-study as LRT, they'll work up the Essex St. Alternative again simply because that was the best-studied one when it was Silver Line Phase III. But its chances are not good because of the expense incurred by structurally underpinning Boylston Station and Chinatown Station (with a double-decker Silver platform, making it 3 stories deep!!!), and the mitigation costs incurred by the digging under very narrow Essex.To expand on this, I've been tinkering with a map of the Far Future Green Line for a little bit now, and this extension plays into it. Here's my attempt at representing it in MetroMapMaker:
Forgive the sloppiness of it, I've been doing most of my work in a local copy of enmodal. The major builds here are:
- Construction of the Stuard St Subway or Marginal Road Subway to take the E and D branches out of the Boylston Street Subway.
- Build the Essex St Subway to send at least one branch of the Boylston St Subway down to South Station and along the Transitway. I have this ending at SIlverline Way to avoid traffic mixing, but you can obviously extend from there.
As above, think efficiency + minimal pitfalls to lift up the Seaport connection to the realm of buildability. Tremont tunnel is 4 tracks...right there you've got grade separation for 2 branches. Can you utilize 2 tracks for the Seaport branch and 2 tracks for the Dudley branch? Or can you plow that 4-track tunnel past Tufts station down Tremont, set up 2 of the tracks to go to the Seaport + Dudley, and leave a 2-track stub to continue west as the "new" E to Back Bay + Prudential. Such that the Huntington tunnel eventually gets extended to become an "alt. spine".
- Reactivate the flying junction at the Pleasant Street Incline to accept the line to Dudley (and build the line to Dudley).
- The one I think is the most money for the least gain: New subway from the Pleasant St Incline, down to Marginal St. and around to some connection to the Essex St subway. This allows trains from the north to go to the Seaport, which radically improves connections, but this is going to be a bear to build.
As in my last reply, that's way way too many northern branches to dispatch...and the fact that the non-UR additions are subject to the chaos of hard-to-control grade crossings offset too far from nearest traffic lights means schedule dominoes are going to start falling regularly.
- Conversion of Grand Junction to Light Rail, and extension through Sullivan to connect to the Chelsea busway.
- The conversation topic above: Reactivation of the Saugus branch. I'd plan to send two lines over this one because of how the tracks would probably be laid out in the new maintenance yard, making it easier to send trains to both the Central Subway and along the Grand Junction. I believe F-Line has a map somewhere that details this.
- Some hand-waved path through Allston to the Harvard tunnels. This area is undergoing so many changes there's not much that can be detailed here. I'm not happy with this being the terminus of one of the Sullivan/Malden branches, but nothing else really made sense.
- Ignore the Urban Ring going through Kenmore and down to Brookline. This routing simply won't work because of the track layout in Kenmore.
Watertown's pretty straightforward. It'd be about 3/4 mile of street-running (though perhaps with reservation'ed platforms) on Arsenal St. at the very tail end...not enough length to kill an inbound schedule to Lechmere. But other than that the routing is very direct and structurally simple (2 shallow duck-unders of Sherman St. and Fresh Pond Pkwy. being the most concrete poured). On cost and buildability it's a good one. It's just not as mission-critical as the biggies. We REALLY REALLY need the Seaport connection, the NW+NE Ring quadrants, Dudley streetcar, the Porter transfer, Needham (for all the well-documented RER-driven reasons), and the E Back Bay relocation. Watertown just doesn't have any oxygen when that's the five-alarm needs list.
- You could obviously extend the Porter branch out further. I don't include that here because it gets unwieldy quickly.
As I said, that's just too many northern branches. And that's a bad thing if the extras exert any destabilizing effect on a load-bearing branch like the Urban Ring segments. Or Medford, for that matter...that one's got insane potential to completely blow its projections out of the water and require more service. And you can't do much more than is already going up. Lechmere is a pretty snug fit across the street, so there isn't a turnback until Brattle Loop. The problem with having crossing-heavy branches added to the 2 grade separated GLX's and the 2 very nearly grade separated Ring routes is that if one of these extra builds stubs its toes in crossing traffic in Malden it's already started dragging the rest down for several stops before it ever gets the chance to dump out at Brattle. And that's doubly ungood for whatever other branches are running at much denser frequencies when they get tripped up (like two 3-min. headway 3-car trains becoming late because of a 6-min. headway 2-car train, and relative numbers of riders impacted).Obviously there are issues. The biggest is cost, but this is more an exploration of what's possible than an actual proposal. The next is probably Central Subway capacity, which is why I tried to minimize lines going all the way through (making use of the Brattle Loop, turning lines at Park, etc.). The second major issue is that I think there's going to be load imbalances on the northside lines that will be hard to compensate for. The branch to the Mystic Valley Parkway is probably going to be overloaded, but I don't see any way to get more service through there. This is about as much as the Central Subway can hold, I think. That makes me want to send more down the Grand Junction from it, but those tracks are being built right now, and they're not lined up for that. I wonder if it would be possible to overbuild Lechmere with a reversing section to bounce some small service back out along the Grand Junction?
The NSRL is more like thameslink actually.
If the Massachusetts central RR is reactivated is there enough space for a rail with trail.
You did:
I did no such thing. I said beside-adjacent, next to
You're going to put a trolley through a highway interchange rotary??? Remember how well that worked out for the A-Line at Newton Corner??? Gone within 4 years of the Pike's opening.
Not through, beside. there is enough room on the west side of the Medford rotary to get the tracks to Joan’s? Hair salon. Ideally, take that one house for a terminus.
This is not your great grandpappy's Fellsway: https://youtu.be/WesgTvAkMOE.
A 10 ft. median is not going to host a trolley reservation. You would have to squeeze the shoulders as tight as Huntington Ave. to regain clearance for a reservation...on a MassHighway-managed parkway, not a city street. So this roundabout diversion very much suffers from traffic effects if you don't get every last bit of that reservation space forked over. If you have to do any amount of street-running, even semi-separated to the left of the yellow stripe, it's going to dramatically slow down the trip.
The Fellsway is 95 ft wide. And if that isn’t enough, there is 5-6 ft of grass on each side before you hit the sidewalk
Then there's the illogic of >3.5 miles north, west, and south out of Wellington to reach a destination that's 2 miles due west of Wellington via Route 16.
That's...awful transit.
Except Google Maps puts it at 3 miles and 16 min on the bus. On Saturday. At 3pm.
In what universe does a transit trip require you to swing closer to the Middlesex Fells to get between two destinations that are on the Mystic River? The 95, 101, 103, and 134 can somehow get between Orange and Medford Sq. without knotting themselves like a pretzel and going miles out of the way.
again, .5 miles and hella less than 16 min. AND, no need to get off the bus, walk up the ramp,and wait for the next train at Wellington.
If that can't be done with another mode, maybe there's a big problem with the mode selection. People are going to notice that they're running around in circles. They don't like it on the bus routes that do it; they won't like it on a so-called rapid transit line, either.
An arc , yes. But hardly circles. And at least 10 min faster to Haymarket
Why are you bringing up the 111? It's far from either of your proposals.
So, taking 800-1000 cars off Rt 1 in Revere will have no impact on Rt 1 on the Tobin?
But here's one problem the as-planned UR does solve: it hits that bus square in the middle and serves up transfers to Orange and Blue 1-2 mi. / 2-3 stops in each direction from the Chelsea transfer, as well as run-thru options on Green. That's the UR in a nutshell: quick-hit transfers from intercepted Key Routes. That's useful.
Another straw man. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact,any people using Saugus or Medford who are going to Kendall or Allston can switch at Sullivan, which could obviate the need for a station at the intersection of UR and The DE line.
Between Malden Ctr. and Linden Sq. the Saugus Branch duplicates but never touches the 106, 108, 411, 430 from 500-1250 ft. away, and small portions of the 105 and 109 also without a touch until Linden. You're not scooping up transfers or bringing multimodal value-addeds that way.
So you MODIFY THE BUS ROUTES!
There are many, many issues with the route...because being too askew from traffic signals to coordinate phases and queues is a recipe for congestion. Now multiply that out by the number of crossings with that characteristic, and it's a problem.
In your opinion. I disagree.
Lest we forget, what you are asking for here are the FIFTH and SIXTH northern branches of the Green Line: Medford, Union, Urban Ring Cambridge (branch off Union), Urban Ring Chelsea, the Fellsway loop-de-loop, and Saugus Branch. The latter two predicated on Orange Line to Reading as build requirements, and tearing apart part of Orange from Sullivan to past Wellington.
Tearing apart? You mean actually using the third OL track and the CR rail?
So UR runs from West Station to Sullivan. It shares the line with Saugus and Medford(3 lines)
Saugus and Medford share Lechmere to North Station with D&E(4 lines) The Central Subway handles that every day. And B,C,and D run every 6 min and E every 9. I would suggest that Saugus and Medford run every 9 like the E. That would be 4.5trains every 9 min instead of the 5.5 trains every 9 the Central Subway sees
This is more than Kenmore fed at its busiest-ever when the D and A coexisted, and the conditions put on the Orange Line for the build are untenable for planning purposes.
Not even a clue of what your point is here. If you are talking about getting the GL from west of Sullivan to east of Assembly, how do you expect to get to Sullivan from Chelsea? Airlift? No, by getting GL over/under OL somewhere between Sullivan and Assembly.
Even with the two UR branches trading off thru-radial routings with Lechmere-inbound routings for service variety, that's an extreme amount of traffic to be dispatching out of the north end.
The Urban Ring should not be at Lechmere.
To have two of those branches addled by many mixed-traffic impacts is going to make for frustrating delays when a blown schedule hits Brickbottom Jct. And it'll drag down the other branches with grade separation as an unintended effect. The Kenmore end is not going to attempt to saddle itself with more unless the subway gets extended to BU Bridge for that Urban Ring hook-in,
Again my earlier comments suggested Saugus and Medford come after Urban Ring. I also assume that one of them might turn around at Gov Center.
and a surface D-to-E connection allows for some fileting of load-bearing short-turn service so they can work in Needham without hiccups.
Also, no disagreement
Brickbottom Jct. is getting built plenty robustly for GLX and the future Ring appendages, but it's got its limits. Six north branches is well past the limit.
Again, no track sees 6 branches, and I think calling the UR TWO branches is disengenous.
Transforming the Green Line doesn't involve adding more B Lines. It's not in the business of replacing bus routes that could be tuned. The future involves more interconnects, more radial paths around downtown, more touches that enhance buses at node points, more fluidity. Not a return to the 1920's with more linear streetcar routes because streetcar = kewl.
No, but Green Line = used. People would rather use the trolley instead the bus. Instead of telling people that spinach is good for them, give them steak.
Is it possible to connect the appalachian trail to the mass central rail trail.
If they pick up Transitway-Downtown for re-study as LRT, they'll work up the Essex St. Alternative again simply because that was the best-studied one when it was Silver Line Phase III. But its chances are not good because of the expense incurred by structurally underpinning Boylston Station and Chinatown Station (with a double-decker Silver platform, making it 3 stories deep!!!), and the mitigation costs incurred by the digging under very narrow Essex.
The killer flaws that need to be corrected to net a cost estimate that's actually buildable are:
That probably means you're doing a South End jog, hitting Orange-Tufts Med. Ctr. with a connecting concourse, and looking for wide and/or urban renewal streets (Kneeland, Marginal...more than one way to try it). Then hitting the pre-provisioned trajectory into the Transitway at the north tip of Chinatown Park. And keep in mind: as BRT the Essex tunnel was to be so godawful dog slow that nearly all service would be forced to loop from either side at Boylston for dispatching sanity. So a trolley on fixed track is going to make this trip faster than SL Phase III ever would've even if the path is no longer straight as the crow flies and looks underwhelmingly indirect on a 2D map. SL Phase III would've been way, way worse than the Transitway crawl.
- Fewest structural underpins possible. Offset, rather than stacked, stations.
- Fewer touches of old infrastructure. 20th c. widened streets, 1960's urban renewal property >>> "Old Boston" 19th c. buildings + poorly documented utilities.
- Less duplication of infrastructure. Re-use outer Boylston platforms + some/all of Tremont tunnel instead of building twice, resorting to ham-fisted geometry to make transfers.
It's less about having a "favorite" routing than maximizing the build odds...because we should've already had this but those bulleted pitfalls above torpedoed the cost. It's a billions-dollar project, but we want a "buildable" digit stuck onto the front.
As above, think efficiency + minimal pitfalls to lift up the Seaport connection to the realm of buildability. Tremont tunnel is 4 tracks...right there you've got grade separation for 2 branches. Can you utilize 2 tracks for the Seaport branch and 2 tracks for the Dudley branch? Or can you plow that 4-track tunnel past Tufts station down Tremont, set up 2 of the tracks to go to the Seaport + Dudley, and leave a 2-track stub to continue west as the "new" E to Back Bay + Prudential. Such that the Huntington tunnel eventually gets extended to become an "alt. spine".
As in my last reply, that's way way too many northern branches to dispatch...and the fact that the non-UR additions are subject to the chaos of hard-to-control grade crossings offset too far from nearest traffic lights means schedule dominoes are going to start falling regularly.
The Cambridge Ring is absolutely positively essential. Kenmore is the tie-in destination, because the south-half Ring that's going to have to be BRT originates there. Filet service between the Kenmore circuit and Harvard Branch as suitable, but anyone waiting on the westbound platform at Kendall surface station must be able to hit Kenmore on at least every other train. Bio-metropolis over in Cambridge needs to be able to pick up a quick transfer to Longwood; that shouldn't even be a question.
Watertown's pretty straightforward. It'd be about 3/4 mile of street-running (though perhaps with reservation'ed platforms) on Arsenal St. at the very tail end...not enough length to kill an inbound schedule to Lechmere. But other than that the routing is very direct and structurally simple (2 shallow duck-unders of Sherman St. and Fresh Pond Pkwy. being the most concrete poured). On cost and buildability it's a good one. It's just not as mission-critical as the biggies. We REALLY REALLY need the Seaport connection, the NW+NE Ring quadrants, Dudley streetcar, the Porter transfer, Needham (for all the well-documented RER-driven reasons), and the E Back Bay relocation. Watertown just doesn't have any oxygen when that's the five-alarm needs list.
As I said, that's just too many northern branches. And that's a bad thing if the extras exert any destabilizing effect on a load-bearing branch like the Urban Ring segments. Or Medford, for that matter...that one's got insane potential to completely blow its projections out of the water and require more service. And you can't do much more than is already going up. Lechmere is a pretty snug fit across the street, so there isn't a turnback until Brattle Loop. The problem with having crossing-heavy branches added to the 2 grade separated GLX's and the 2 very nearly grade separated Ring routes is that if one of these extra builds stubs its toes in crossing traffic in Malden it's already started dragging the rest down for several stops before it ever gets the chance to dump out at Brattle. And that's doubly ungood for whatever other branches are running at much denser frequencies when they get tripped up (like two 3-min. headway 3-car trains becoming late because of a 6-min. headway 2-car train, and relative numbers of riders impacted).